If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Former National Party PM John Key and current embattled ANZ NZ Chairman shows us that he thought he knew best and should have acted like a feudal king when he was PM. That he should have just changed the NZ flag without consulting the people of NZ or even his cabinet by the sounds of it, when he was in power!https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12242524

As it was millions was spent on his pet vanity project when polls had indicated it was not burning issue for the NZ public and only a minority support for a change.

Maybe he can move to the USA and get a job with Trump. They are welcome to him, with an arrogant attitude like that.

Originally Posted by Bjauck

Former National Party PM John Key and current embattled ANZ NZ Chairman shows us that he thought he knew best and should have acted like a feudal king when he was PM. That he should have just changed the NZ flag without consulting the people of NZ or even his cabinet by the sounds of it, when he was in power!https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12242524

As it was millions was spent on his pet vanity project when polls had indicated it was not burning issue for the NZ public and only a minority support for a change.

Maybe he can move to the USA and get a job with Trump. They are welcome to him, with an arrogant attitude like that.

Just like Jacinda and her mob just changing stuff without consulting the public. Happens all the time. That is why we elect govt. For them to enact change without consultation. Nothing wrong with JK's hindsight here. (not a big fan of Shonkey myself but have no problem with this one)

So you would have been perfectly happy if Key had simply gone ahead and changed the flag even though he knew full well the majority of us didn't want it? It would have an irresponsible waste if taxpayers money and would have served no good purpose. Jacinda "and her mob" as you put it, have consulted more with the public than National ever did. Not necessarily via referendums but they have sought and considered our input on a number of issues,so I think you are being a bit unfair. CGT is a prime example. Kiwis made it clear we didn't want it. The government didn't have to take that onboard but they did. For now, anyway. Whether you agree with CGT or not is irrelevant. The fact is, the government recognized that it wasn't what we want and they respected that.

Originally Posted by blackcap

Just like Jacinda and her mob just changing stuff without consulting the public. Happens all the time. That is why we elect govt. For them to enact change without consultation. Nothing wrong with JK's hindsight here. (not a big fan of Shonkey myself but have no problem with this one)

Jacinda "and her mob" as you put it, have consulted more with the public than National ever did. Not necessarily via referendums but they have sought and considered our input on a number of issues,so I think you are being a bit unfair. CGT is a prime example. Kiwis made it clear we didn't want it. The government didn't have to take that onboard but they did. For now, anyway. Whether you agree with CGT or not is irrelevant. The fact is, the government recognized that it wasn't what we want and they respected that.

I don't recall CGT being 'consulted' on with the general public, do you? Fair enough your view is that Kiwi's "made it clear we didn't want it" (how?) but I reckon it was just a pragmatic political decision by the PM who realised that a CGT would probably cost them re-election.

About that flag. I reckon there would have been a different outcome had the country been allowed to have the simple silver fern on black. But that was not allowed, so we ended up with a mishmash of complex styles. Water under the bridge now.

I understand that Labour and NZ First, both conducted online surveys/polls on the subject of Taxation, including CGT. I myself completed one of these surveys at the time. Clearly this was not an official referendum, but it was a legitimate way for them to gauge public opinion. At the time Jacinda announced that the government would not be pursuing a CGT at this time, she referred to the fact that many Kiwis had voiced their opinions/provided feedback. She stated that it was clear this was not something New Zealanders wanted and the government had taken their feedback onboard.

Political discussions like this, never achieve anything in my opinion. We all have different world views which impact how we see things. People just get defensive about their preferred party and nobody really wants to hear what the other side is saying. And yes, I include myself in that statement. I think politics brings out the worst in people unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Baa_Baa

I don't recall CGT being 'consulted' on with the general public, do you? Fair enough your view is that Kiwi's "made it clear we didn't want it" (how?) but I reckon it was just a pragmatic political decision by the PM who realised that a CGT would probably cost them re-election.

Just like Jacinda and her mob just changing stuff without consulting the public. Happens all the time. That is why we elect govt. For them to enact change without consultation. Nothing wrong with JK's hindsight here. (not a big fan of Shonkey myself but have no problem with this one)

It is why we elect the MPs in parliament - for them to represent our views. The PM and Government are answerable to parliament as it is parliament that decides who becomes PM. So we can have a change of government or PM without necessarily having a new election.

It is why we elect the MPs in parliament - for them to represent our views. The PM and Government are answerable to parliament as it is parliament that decides who becomes PM. So we can have a change of government or PM without necessarily having a new election.

It is why we elect the MPs in parliament - for them to represent our views.

This is largely correct in principle but in practice we elect MP's to represent their party views in Parliament. Not necessarily our own views, regardless of whether we thought they had views that we supported and voted for them to support. It's not a perfect system, the voters support them to 'get power' (elections) whereas the elected party's can do anything they like to 'retain power'.

Originally Posted by Bjauck

The PM and Government are answerable to parliament

Well not precisely, Parliament per se is a gathering of all party's in a debating chamber (the House) which progresses Bills through readings into Acts of law. Any member of Parliament, whether the government or the PM or anyone else elected or List member who has a Seat, is not 'answerable' to "Parliament" in any other respect than the protocols of the Office and the House, i.e. behaving properly while they present their arguments.

Originally Posted by Bjauck

So we can have a change of government or PM without necessarily having a new election.

Under extraordinary circumstances of dissolution of the Government by various means, like a successful vote of no confidence in the government and the Governor General dissolving the government and either calling for a new governing proposal (from alternate parties) or prompting a new election. 'We' cannot have a change of PM by any mechanism of government or Parliament as the PM is the choice of the governing party or coalition parties as is the case presently.

------

I'm sure there are more knowledgable and eloquent people who could explain this in detail however even a cursory understanding of the three pillars of government (legislature, executive, judiciary) and their constitutional separation would help to understand why your paragraph is ill informed and so far off the mark.

It is why we elect the MPs in parliament - for them to represent our views. The PM and Government are answerable to parliament as it is parliament that decides who becomes PM. So we can have a change of government or PM without necessarily having a new election.

You are twisting my words again I see. All I meant to say was that there is no problem with parliament not consulting the people to enact new laws. That is why we elect them. So that they do the heavy lifting for us. If we do not like it we vote them out at the next opportunity. If JK had not support in his party they would have gotten rid of him as PM. Had he had support then he could have just pushed the flag thing through. No problems with that at all. Even if the majority of people in NZ did not want that.

Govt is there to do things that they perceive best for this country, and often the majority of people do not want it. But they do it. Asset sales springs to mind as do quite a few laws that have been enacted in the past.

So you would have been perfectly happy if Key had simply gone ahead and changed the flag even though he knew full well the majority of us didn't want it? It would have an irresponsible waste if taxpayers money and would have served no good purpose. Jacinda "and her mob" as you put it, have consulted more with the public than National ever did. Not necessarily via referendums but they have sought and considered our input on a number of issues,so I think you are being a bit unfair. CGT is a prime example. Kiwis made it clear we didn't want it. The government didn't have to take that onboard but they did. For now, anyway. Whether you agree with CGT or not is irrelevant. The fact is, the government recognized that it wasn't what we want and they respected that.

Rubbish. Jacinda and her mob have done a heck of a lot that the majority of kiwis do not necessarily want. And good on them. That is why they were elected, to make the hard decisions, not necessarily the most palatable ones, but ultimately ones that benefit this country. You cannot go and consult with the people at every whim. It is just not efficient. I may not have been happy if Key had changed the flag (I was in the keep existing camp) but I would have respected his and National's right to do so. If I felt strongly enough about it I then have a chance every 3 years to vote for another party.